Postal Voting

Government's postal vote proposals fall well short of the mark

2005-05-14T14:55:00.000+01:00

The number of investigations into postal vote fraud in the UK has reached 25 in 19 constituencies. In the city of Bradford alone, 252 allegations of fraud have been made.

In response, the Government has outlined legislation to tighten security. The measures include:

A new offence of fraudulently applying for a postal vote, which mean up to five years in jail - this is welcome but useless without the resources and means for electoral officers and police to investigate fraud.
Preventing candidates and party officials from handling postal vote applications - good. This is common sense and it is staggering that this was legal before the election.
Increasing the time election administrators have to check postal voting applications by extending the deadline from six to 11 days - given how much is on their plate in the run-up to the election, this extension is not enough.
Making it harder to forge ballot papers by using barcodes - with scores of computer programs out there that can produce barcodes and cheap high-quality printing, this is a cosmetic change at best.
Using signatures and dates of birth as additional verifiers - as signatures can be faked (and there is no existing register of them), and one's date of birth is rarely a secret, neither of these measures will guarantee fraud will be cut. This is especially pertinent as (see below) registration will still be done at the household level.

The biggest failure of the proposed bill is to not adopt a system of individual registration, and to keep the registration at the household level. This system means that one person in the household will be the one in charge of all the voting applications in that house; when combined with a postal vote it means that both the votes, and the assertion that they are valid, are out of any supervision by the authorities. If both these means of validation are in the hands of one person, it leads to the potential for abuse, either by overstating the number of people in the household, or by taking the vote away from other members.

The Consitutional Affairs secretary, Lord Falconer, has defended keeping the household register, saying: "If we had separate registration forms for everybody would that reduce the number who register?". He cited Northern Ireland as an example where it has. But he misses the point completely - it doesn't matter if the number of registered people falls. What matters is whether the number of people who are eligible for a vote falls. Given the current registers are flawed and almost certainly over-state the number of people eligible, a fall is to be expected.

The question the Government needs to be asking is "does this system deny a secret, secure vote from people who are eligible for it?". Household registration, as outlined above, can. However, individual registration does not deny the vote to anyone who actually has the right to it. And by removing fraudulent votes, it will improve the quality of the votes that eligible citizens cast. Making applications for the vote more secure does not threaten to disenfranchise people - it does the precise opposite.

Vigilance may have helped...or not

2005-05-10T23:30:00.000+01:00

Raised vigilance about postal vote fraud may have prevented potential fraud from taking place. A third of the 60,000 postal ballots sent out in Birmingham were not returned, however this is no guarantee that all vote fraud was stopped.

Elsewhere in the country, arrests have been made in Burnley, and there are investigations ongoing in Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, West Mercia, Greater Manchester and St Albans, as well as tampered ballots in Stoke-on-Trent.

Disenfranchised

2005-05-07T14:01:00.001+01:00

While John Humphrys' apparent "stolen vote" turns out to be his own fault, other people who do not have the luxury of a show on the BBC were genuinely disenfranchised on Thursday.

Postal vote problems - a summary

2005-05-05T11:26:00.000+01:00

It's election day today; if you can vote, please do.

Meanwhile, here's a summary of problems with the postal vote in the elections being held today, to keep in mind in case there are any contentious or surprising results tonight. I'll let you know of any more. Enjoy election day!

Allegations of fraud

In Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath, a Labour candidate has had postal votes for neighbours and friends redirected to his house. Earlier this year three Labour councillors from Birmingham were deemed to have taken part in widespread vote fraud in local elections last year, running 'vote factories'. The QC presiding, Richard Mawrey, said the cale of the fraud would 'would disgrace a banana republic'. One man has since had the ruling reversed. In addition, an election official in Birmingham is suspended after 1000 postal votes from last year's elections were found unopened in a council storage room. #
In Bradford, two men have been arrested in connection with suspected postal vote fraud for today's general election. #
A separate case in Bradford is looking at two Conservative councillors who have registered a large number of people at their own house. #
There are also police investigations in Leicester East, Leicester South, Bethnal Green & Bow, High Wycombe, Luton, Southampton and Somerset & Frome. #
A further police investigation is taking place in Dungannon. #

Duplicate ballot papers

363 voters in Basingstoke have been sent duplicate papers. #
2,500 duplicates have been sent to voters in Oldham West & Royston. #

Misdirected or lost ballot papers

In Macclesfield the delivery of 2,400 ballots has been delayed. #
300 papers meant for Windsor have instead been sent to Skegness. #
Hundreds of ballot papers have been reported late in Hereford. #
10 people in Aberdeen have reported their postal votes have not come through. #

Misprinted ballot papers

16,000 ballots in Wyre, Lancashire, for the council elections have been sent out with numbers that do not match the declaration form, making them invalid if sent in. #
400 papers in Colchester also do not have properly matching numbers. #
1100 papers in Suffolk for the county council elections have been misprinted, asking for the wrong number of candidates to be voted for. #
200 papers in Edinburgh have had mismatching numbers printed. #

Miscellaneous problems

In Flintshire, Alyn and Deeside, Delyn and the Vale of Clwyd, envelopes sent out cannot seal properly. #

Arrests, appeals and AWOL ballots

2005-05-04T09:54:00.000+01:00

Two men have been arrested in connection with allegations of postal vote fraud in Bradford - it's unclear if this is to do with the same allegations that were reported here yesterday. (Update: The Yorkshire Post reports that it is a separate enquiry).

Meanwhile, one of the councillors in Birmingham, Muhammed Afzal, has been cleared of vote fraud charges, but the ruling that the other two engaged in illegal practices stays.

Meanwhile, the reliance on printing contractors to handle distribution (as well as production) of postal ballots has caused further problems - in Macclesfield and nearby Tatton, 2,400 papers have not been sent out correctly, and are having to be reprinted. In addition, hundreds of envelopes meant for Windsor have ended up being sent to Skegness. The Times also reports of missing papers in Hereford, and of 2,500 duplicate papers being sent out in Oldham West & Royston.

More allegations in Bradford

2005-05-03T11:33:00.000+01:00

In Bradford, a second councillor, Mohammed Sultan, is being investigated for postal vote fruad, after it was found he had 16 postal votes directed to his own address. Mr Sultan denies wrongdoing but has resigned the Conservative whip. This follows similar allegations against Jamshed Khan, another Conservative councillor in Bradford.

Meanwhile, the three Labour councillors in Birmingham have an appeal and it should be heard today.

Postal voting irregularities all over the country

2005-05-01T13:27:00.000+01:00

The Sunday papers have a set of articles on mistakes in postal voting nationwide. The Sunday Times highlights the case of Mohammed Akram, a Labour supporter who applied for voter forms on behalf of four of his neighbours, all of which were sent to his address. At least two of his neighbours were unaware that this had taken place, and will now be unable to vote on May 5.

In addition, irregularities in the process have been reported in Finchley & Golders Green, Glasgow, Blackburn and Bethnal Green & Bow. One voter in Norwich has been sent 14 papers, most for former residents of his address.

In addition, the Sunday Telegraph reports that in Basingstoke, people have been sent duplicate papers. 363 households have received two sets of papers. Basingstoke's majority at the last election was only 880. Meanwhile, a separate investigation demonstrates the insecurity of the system; it was able to get 11 ballot papers in different constituencies sent to the same residence in south west London, using simple forms and a fake signature.

Colchester latest to suffer from misnumbered ballots

2005-04-30T14:28:00.000+01:00

Around 400 ballot papers in Colchester have been given numbers that do not match the declaration form, like the examples mentioned earlier, so that any of those votes sent in would have had to have been invalidated.

Dodgy ballots in Haverhill; police investigation in NI

2005-04-29T21:16:00.000+01:00

Further to the earlier reported story in the Guardian, faulty ballots have been reported Haverhill, Cambridgeshire; it's not clear whether this is one of the three areas mentioned in the earlier article.

Also, the Belfast Telegraph is reporting on a police investigation into alleged electoral fraud, reportedly in Dungannon.

Three more areas recall faulty papers

2005-04-29T10:43:00.000+01:00

This morning's Guardian reports that the problem affecting Wyre, noted here yesterday, of ballot papers being sent out with incorrectly matching declaration of identity forms, has also affected three other areas holding elections, though they do not name them. 23,000 further ballots may have to be recalled as a result. The article also discusses the further implications of the mistakes in Wyre, and the possibilities of legal action should the result be close.

Further postal voting mishaps

2005-04-28T19:30:00.000+01:00

The BBC have a summary of various postal voting mishaps, including the previously-mentioned dodgy envelopes in Wales and cancelled ballot papers in Wyre. It also reports that in Shropshire, ballots meant for the returning officers are being sent to local businesses instead.

16,000 misprinted ballots recalled

2005-04-28T14:04:00.000+01:00

Wyre council in Lancashire has been forced to 16,000 postal ballot papers, as the serial numbers on different parts didn't match, potentially invalidating all the postal voters' votes. The council hopes to deliver the new papers out before polls close next Thursday. Good of them to have caught it, albeit with just a week to go; I wonder how easy it is to make a mistake like this? Other local authorities may not have been so eagle-eyed.

Some more marginals with high postal counts

2005-04-26T22:23:00.000+01:00

The other day, I listed some marginal seats with high numbers of postal vote applications. Courtesy of the BBC, here are some more:

Cheadle (33 majority in 2001; 8,226 applications)
Dorset Mid & N Poole (384; 4,306)
Norfolk North (483; 6,323)
Weston-super-Mare (338; 6,323)
Braintree (358; ~10,000)
Taunton (235; 11,700)
Orpington (269; 6,429)

News round-up

2005-04-26T20:03:00.000+01:00

Apologies again for an absence that was due to circumstance beyond my control. Here's some recaps in brief:

First off, John Hemming's bid failed, and had received very little coverage in the news as a result, although the Telegraph notes he still had the sympathy of the judge, who deferred any change to the politicians; given that our leaders refuse to acknowledge the problems, this doesn't leave me with very much hope.

Meanwhile, a Conservative councillor in Bradford is under investigation for registering 13 people at his own house, and another 12 at a derelict property he had allegedly co-owned.

Although the Government has promised an advertising campaign (is this where all the much-vaunted extra money to combat fraud is going?) in a weak attempt to make up for the lax rules on postal vote processing, election officials note that the deluge of votes they are expecting will make it hard to regulate. Things won't be helped by the fact that in Wales, they can't even get the envelopes to seal properly.

John Hemming loses High Court bid

2005-04-21T12:28:00.000+01:00

Scotsman is reporting John Hemming has lost his Judicial Review bid. Damn. More to follow...

JR up tomorrow

2005-04-20T18:06:00.000+01:00

Councillor John Hemming's Judicial Review on postal vote security for the upcoming election will be heard tomorrow. Will be keeping a close eye on events.

OSCE monitor warns of future fraud.

2005-04-17T19:22:00.000+01:00

Bruce George, Labour MP for Walsall South and election monitor for the OSCE, has warned of possible fraud in the forthcoming election. George was an OSCE representative at the Ukrainian elections of last year; the OSCE will for the first time send in election observers for the 2005 general election.

Meanwhile, despite the overwhelming evidence against them, the three Birmingham councillors who were judged to have committed electoral fraud will appeal the decision, hoping to be able to stand for election on May 5.

Big three all happily process postal vote applications

2005-04-17T18:33:00.000+01:00

While Conservative leader Michael Howard condemns Tony Blair for not following Electoral Commission guidelines, it turns out all of the big three parties in the UK happily go along with one of the watered-down rules, namely allowing parties to process postal vote appliations. Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems all have, as part of their election material, a form and envelope for postal vote applications; each party's respective envelope is addressed to the party's processing centre, rather than the local electoral officer. Allowing a party contesting an election to hand over application forms belies a serious conflict of interest, yet the parties refused to agree with the Electoral Commission's ruling that this should not take place; the relevant rule was watered down to a mere recommendation.

The Guardian also detail some marginal seats which have had enormous rises in postal vote applications, as does the BBC. These include:

Haltemprice and Howden (1,903 majority; 9,800 postal vote applications)
Surrey South West (861; 10,000)
Guildford (538; 14,000)
South Dorset (153; 3,500)
Torridge & West Devon (1,200; 10,000)

It'll be worth keeping an eye on all of these seats come election time; any more I find and I'll add them to the list.

John Hemming applies for Judicial Review

2005-04-11T23:14:00.000+01:00

Favourite of this blog, John Hemming (who has quite a lot on his plate at the moment), has posted details of his application for a Judicial Review. Basically it will request the Privy Council (in the absence of the now-dissolved Parliament), to enforce a secure postal ballot, arguing the current rules breach the European Convention on Human Rights on the right to a free and fair election. It should be heard sometime this week. We await with bated breath...

Postal ballots could go to court; Labour "secretly dropped" reform bill last autumn

2005-04-11T16:42:00.000+01:00

Apologies for no posts at the weekend, I was away. Anyway, here's quick news roundup: Although extra money has been promised to police to tackle postal voting fraud, The Independent on Sunday mentions as a footnote that ACPO chief Chris Fox has said no forces have seen any extra resources head their way. The main article mentions that over 100 (a sixth of all seats) have margins smaller than the number of votes, opening fears of Florida 2000-style court cases after the forthcoming election.

The Sunday Times, meanwhile, has an excellent in-depth investigation of postal voting. As well as summing up the Blackburn and Birmingham cases, the article highlights the main flaws of the system. They've been covered here before but it's worth re-listing them here:

Postal vote forms can be sent to any address, not just the registered ones.
Registration is done per household, not per individual, allowing householders to exaggerrate or outrightly lie over who lives at a residence
There is no record of voter identification (nor any legal requirement for councils to do so), making the signature on the ballot effectively useless
There are no rules on stopping campaigners and canvassers "helping" with either the registration or the submission of postal votes.

Individual registration, which would solve some but not all problems, has been advocated by police, the Electoral Commission and even cabinet committee level a few months ago; Labour have been considering reforming the system with a new bill last autumn. But a leaked memo from Peter Watt, head of Labour's constitutional and legal unit, vigorously opposed the proposals, fearing a lower turnout; never mind the valdidity of the ballot, Labour's election machinery is only concerned with getting their demographic out to vote. Another memo states:

"Labour supporters with a postal vote are four times more likely to vote than Labour supporters who vote at polling stations. If we can get them to apply for a permanent postal vote it helps our electoral prospects."

Labour quietly dropped the bill, probably because they werre more than happy for the status quo to continue. While the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have both promised reform of the system, Labour are still officially in denial over the flaws in the system - Tony Blair said the other day: "Overall, the postal voting system is no more prone to fraud than other electoral systems."

But there is hope - today's Times quotes Labour insiders as saying the bill will be resurrected if Labour win, thanks to the furore after Birmingham and Blackburn. Alas, the party is too embarrassed to say what a hideous mistake it is, so don't hold your breath for any official confirmation, yet.

Blackburn councillor jailed for postal fraud

2005-04-08T18:16:00.000+01:00

Hot on the heels of the Birmingham case, comes the result of criminal proceedings against a Blackburn councillor, Muhammed Hussain, who was today jailed for three years for rigging a local ballot in 2002.

Once again, it was done via the postal vote. Like Birmingham, it was achieved through local campaigners going door-to-door and "taking care" of them; with no way of verifying whether a ballot was from who it claimed to be, nor any way of verifying the witness to the vote either, they could cast as many cotes as they liked. It was only thanks to a suspiciously return rate and the vociferous opposition of the losing candidate that Hussain was brought to book.

Judicial review sought for general election postal votes

2005-04-07T21:27:00.000+01:00

Lib Dem councillor John Hemming, PPC for Birmingham Yardley is seeking a judicial review into postal voting. More details are available on his own blog. The Scotsman say it could well postpone the entire election, although none of the measures listed look like they could well; all it is asking for changes in procedure to make any fraud easier to track.

John Hemming has also thoughtfully provided a copy of the Mawrey judgement on the Birmingham Bordesley Green and Aston cases - it's available in the SaveDemocracy Yahoo! group. Alternatively I will email it (it's half a meg) to anyone who wants it. I will endeavour to post any particularly pertinent extracts on this blog later this week.

Postal strike could affect election

2005-04-07T21:03:00.000+01:00

The Times is reporting that a postal strike could interrupt the general election: yet another reason why leaving the ballot in the hands of another service is a bad idea.

Raynsford pledges cash for ballot fraud policing

2005-04-05T23:21:00.001+01:00

Nick Raynsford, the Local Government Minister, has promised £10m extra funding to combatting postal vote fraud. While the sentiment is welcome, the system needs reform, not cash. The £10m is to be spent on training & funding the police forces investigating any fraud; nothing will be done to prevent any dodgy ballots being made, but only on trying to clean up the worst of the mess afterwards.

Birmingham case - the blogosphere reacts

2005-04-04T23:21:00.000+01:00

There's some comment on the electoral court decision in the political blogosphere - the consensus (whether Labour or not) has been that the elections concerned were fraudulent and the guilty parties punished. Eric the Unread questions the very need for postal voting for the healthy and able-bodied, and makes an excellent point in that an unreliable ballot could lead to less participation, with the electorate thinking "It ain't worth voting because they fix the elections anyway".

Meanwhile, Nick Barlow tells us to make sure the Labour General Secretary, Mike Griffiths, is kept informed of any infringements by Labour candidates at forthcoming elections, which is a splendid idea. For reference (from the Labour Party directory), he can be contacted by phone at: 01234 351 521 or via email at: mikegriffiths@gpmu.org.uk.

Unfortunately, the Harry's Place post on the topic results in a set of comments that degenerates into an argument about racism. Although race is a sensitive issue, especially in this case with all (or at least some) of the candidates involved being Asian and Muslim, we must remember that the postal ballot, being easy to forge and not at all private, aids in the disenfranchisement of ethnic minority voters. Jumping to false conclusions when ethnic minority candidates are elected, without any evidence to back allegations is of course uitterly wrong, but neither should not pussyfoot around when there is firm suspicion of fraud.

I am still trying to find a full copy of the report online, but neither Birmingham City Council, the Electoral Commission or the Government News Network have published it yet.

Birmingham: no better than a "banana republic"

2005-04-04T18:53:00.000+01:00

The judge in the Birmingham case, Richard Mawrey QC, has ruled that the local elections were rigged, saying that there had been "massive, systematic and organised fraud" on behalf of six councillors in the Bordesley Green and Aston wards. 1,500 to 2,000 votes were fraudlently cast in Bordesley Green alone. It's perhaps best to quote one part or his scathing judgment in full, to highlight the Government's lax attitude towards postal voting fraud:

"In the course of preparing my judgment, my attention was drawn to what I am told is an official Government statement about postal voting which I hope I quote correctly: ’There are no proposals to change the rules governing election procedures for the next election, including those for postal voting. The systems already in place to deal with the allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working. Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising. To assert that’the systems already in place to deal with the allegations of electoral fraud are clearly working’ indicates a state not simply of complacency but of denial. The systems to deal with fraud are not working well. They are not working badly. The fact is that there are no systems to deal realistically with fraud and there never have been. Until there are, fraud will continue unabated."

The above (emphasis mine) is quoted from a lengthy Times piece, which is good for all the gory details. It's not just the lack of action from our lawmakers that's the problem; the police also come in for criticism, too:

"The police attitude was well summed up by the use of the codename for these complaints - Operation Gripe. In essence, the police did nothing to prevent the fraud."

Although there were only six councillors charged, the judge hinted that the operation went well beyond just Bordesley Green and Aston:

"Bordesley Green and Aston were not isolated incidents but were part of a Birmingham-wide campaign by the Labour Party to try, by the use of bogus postal votes, to counter the adverse effect of the Iraq war on its electoral fortunes."

But Birmingham may well not be the only place - The Guardian reports that there are investigations in Reading, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire; The Sunday Times yesterday made more specific allegations, namely, that there has been misconduct by Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors in Bradford, with many of the same tactics used in the Birmingham case. The police are pursuing one allegation, but the rest have been dropped due to lack of evidence.

There is no word from the Government yet on the Birmingham case, or any possible change in the law (remember this is the first such case in 30 years) regarding postal votes. However, yesterday, there was an announcement that election monitors could be posted at polling stations and at local counts. But this misses the point entirely - all the electoral fraud is being done long before polling day, away from those places. With no system in place to check for postal vote fraud, the observers are not going to be able to detect any fraud that takes place.

(Minor update: Sorry, was in a rush when I wrote the above and Blogger is being temperamental today; I've now corrected the numerous grammatical errors)

Birmingham whistleblower facing deselection

2005-04-01T09:54:00.000+01:00

The MP for Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath Roger Godsiff (Labour), is facing a last-minute selection ballot, after having publicly complained about alleged electoral malpractice that has led to 6 Labour councillors being put on trial. Some of the practices included:

“During campaigning in the ward, regular phone calls were made to the police by people complaining about the pressure that they were being put under,” he said. “A postman complained to his superiors that the brother of one of the candidates had offered him £500 for his sack of postal votes.”

While claiming that the postal vote and electoral roll are secure, and no fraud in Birmingham has taken place, the Labour Party cannot seem to keep its own house in order - it is having difficulty maintaining an accurate list of party members in inner-city Birmingham for the reselection ballot.

Stolen Votes

2005-03-31T21:43:00.000+01:00

Stolenvotes.org.uk is another website dedicated to higlighting the problems with postal voting; there's plenty of good archival stuff there. I will post some more specific posts in the near future.

Commons committees differ over electoral registration rules

2005-03-30T18:48:00.000+01:00

MPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the ODPM Committee have released a report which includes suggesting stricter registration - instead of registering a whole household at once (which means a householder can in theory register non-existent members - they can then use thea postal vote to send false votes from these members), each individual in a householder would register separately; such registrations would be backed up with other databases such as the postal service.

This is a welcome step, but sadly the report only outlines a set of options rather than a specific recommendation, and the two chairs of each committee have conflicting opinion. Andrew Bennett (Labour) from the ODPM committee advocates adoption of individual registration as soon as possible, while his Constitutional Affairs counterpart Alan Beith (Lib Dem) is fiercely defending the status quo:

“On the basis of the evidence we heard I do not believe that a move to individual registration should be undertaken until measures likely to increase registration have been put in place and proved effective. There is no point in making so fundamental a change if the effect would be to reduce the proportion of the eligible population who are registered to vote.”

Mr Beith's comments suggest he is willing to pursue high turnout at any cost; he doesn't back up his implicit assertion that a switch to individual registration would exclude any genuinely eligible voters.

Fraud allegations in Woking and Birmingham

2005-03-28T11:24:00.000+01:00

Today's Guardian features a general report on the potential for fraud, and a specific one on alleged cases in Woking and Birmingham. Of particular concern in Woking is this:

The electoral roll remains flawed for the general election, expected on May 5, and that the 16 names registered at 98 Albert Drive are still on the register. "The names of the postal voters there are still on the registers although none of them lives there and it is at the centre of a police inquiry," said Mr Hussain. "We have written to the council about this, but have had no response."

As well as the laxity of the local council, the article also notes that often the police have little experience in investigating such fraud.

Alleged violence and bribery in the Birmingham case

2005-03-28T10:21:00.000+01:00

The Independent published an article on the Birmingham case last week. A mirrored copy is available here. The sheer scale is staggering - 3,000 of the 7,000 votes are alleged to have been fraudelently cast. And it wasn't just ballot box-stuffing, but also stretched to outright bribery and threats of violence:

The former Liberal Democrat councillor Ayoub Khan - who lost his Aston seat in those elections - claims some votes were up for auction. "I knocked on one door," says Khan, a 31-year-old trainee barrister, "and the householder said to me, 'I've been offered £10 for my vote, but I'm looking for £15...'" Khan also told a court he'd received "numerous death threats" during the election campaign. He says these have continued since he helped to mount a legal challenge to the Aston result. "People have phoned me at all hours, from withheld numbers. They play a recording: it'll say things like, 'We're watching you; we're going to shoot your kneecaps off.'"

Matthew Parris on the Birmingham case

2005-03-25T15:32:00.000Z

Matthew Parris' column in today's Times details just how easy can be to get hold of dozens of votes. Though he can't resist sniping at Labour throughout, it is a good illustration of just how easy the system has been made. The police's indifference to any crime being committed is worth noting: any complaints made were nicknamed "Operation Gripe".

Judge condemns system as open to fraud

2005-03-23T13:52:00.000Z

At the moment this is an ongoing court case so I can't comment much, but coverage (of the Birmingham electoral court) is worth reading: BBC - Judge hits out at postal voting:

"If I come to the conclusion that all the respondents in both cases were entirely innocent, I would not neglect to point out the law as it stands is an open invitation to fraud. I could not come to any other conclusion."

The case is being heard by a judge only; judgement is reserved until April 4.

Welcome to Postal Voting

2005-03-22T22:31:00.000Z

This is (or will intended to be) a blog about postal voting in the United Kingdom. With the upcoming general election this aims to be a central collection of resources about postal voting, and the potential for misuse or outright fraud in marginal constituencies.